January 11, 2022, at 12:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that there were no pecuniary interests disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by E. Holder

That Items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.1   1st Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee

2021-12-15 CAC Report

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by E. Holder

That the 1st Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on December 15, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   Award of Engineering Services to Complete Environmental Protection Act and Other Approvals for the Proposed Expansion of W12A Landfill

2022-01-11 SR - Award of Engineering Services to Complete Environmental Protection

2022-01-11 SR - Award of Engineering Services to Complete Environmental Protection Appendix A

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated January 11, 2022, related to the studies and documentation required to obtain approval for the Proposed Expansion of the W12A Landfill once the Environmental Assessment Study Report has been submitted to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks:

a)        Golder Associates Ltd. BE APPOINTED to complete the studies and documentation required to obtain Environmental Compliance Approvals for the Proposed Expansion of the W12A Landfill Site under the Environmental Protection Act for Waste and Air and under the Ontario Water Resource Act for the Stormwater Management Ponds, in the total amount of $454,177.80, including a contingency of $75,696.30, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)        Dillon Consulting Ltd. BE APPOINTED to complete the studies and documentation required to obtain Environmental Compliance Approvals for the Proposed Expansion of the W12A Landfill Site under the Ontario Water Resource Act for the leachate pumping station, in the total amount of $102,832.00, including a contingency of $17,139.00, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)        AECOM Canada Ltd. BE APPOINTED to carry out the studies and documentation required to obtain approvals under the Endangered Species Act for the protection of Species of Risk identified and listed in the Environmental Assessment Study Report for the Proposed Expansion of the W12A Landfill, and to provide the documentation required with respect to preservation of the Natural Environment to obtain Environmental Compliance Approvals, in the total amount of $99,028.73, including a contingency of $14,678.44, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

d)        Comcor Environmental Ltd. BE APPOINTED to carry out preparation of supporting documents as part of the Design and Operation Report for the Environmental Compliance Approval - Waste application, and to carry out detailed design for the initial landfill gas collection system expansion construction, in the total amount of $102,354.00, including a contingency of $17,059.00, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

e)        the financing for the work, as identified in parts a), b), c) and d) above, BE APPROVED in accordance with the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report;

f)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with these purchases; and,

g)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.

Motion Passed

2.3   Appointment of Consulting Engineer for the Kilally Infrastructure Works Detailed Design

2022-01-11 SR - Appointment of Consulting Engineer for the Kilally Infrastructure Works Detailed Design Part A

2022-01-11 SR - Appointment of Consulting Engineer for the Kilally Infrastructure Works Detailed Design Part B

2022-01-11 SR - Appointment of Consulting Engineer for the Kilally Infrastructure Works Detailed Design Part C

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated January 11, 2022, related to the appointment of consulting services for the Kilally Infrastructure Works project:

a)        Stantec Consulting Ltd. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the detailed design for the Kilally Infrastructure Works project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $719,535, including 20% contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

d)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; and,

e)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.(2021-T05)

Motion Passed

2.4   Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and City of London Flood Protection Projects: West London Dyke - Phase 7 Increase to Consulting Fees

2022-01-11 SR - Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and City of London Flood Protection Projects

2022-01-11 SR - Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and City of London Flood Protection Projects Appx A

2022-01-11 SR - Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and City of London Flood Protection Projects Appx. B

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated January 11, 2022, related to the increasing the existing contract for the Phase 7 West London Dyke project:

a)        the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the added consulting and detailed design works for Phase 7 of the West London Dyke on behalf of the City by increasing the City’s share by $72,174.66, including contingency, excluding HST;

b)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this work;

d)        the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the project; and,

e)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-E21/F11A)

Motion Passed

2.5   Report on Emergency Repairs to Pumps at Wonderland Pumping Station

2022-01-11 SR - Report on Emergency Repairs to Pumps at Wonderland Pumping Station

2022-01-11 SR - Report on Emergency Repairs to Pumps at Wonderland Pumping Station Appendix A

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated January 11, 2022, related to emergency repairs to the Wonderland Pumping Station pumps that were undertaken without competitive procurement but in accordance with Section 14.2 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.6   Strategic Plan Variance Report

2021-01-11 SR - Strategic Plan Variance Report

Moved by M. van Holst

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated January 11, 2022, related to the Strategic Plan Progress Variance BE RECEIVED for information. (2021-C08)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.7   Ontario Regulation (O.Reg.) 406/19 - On-Site and Excess Soil Management

2022-01-11 SR - Ontario Regulation (O.Reg.) 406-19

Moved by M. van Holst

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated January 11, 2022, related to the Ontario Regulation (O.Reg.) 406/19 (On-site and Excess Soil Management), BE RECEIVED for information. (2021-E05)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Environmental Assessment Study Report for the Environmental Assessment of the Proposed W12A Landfill Expansion

2022-01-11 SR - Environmental Assessment Study Report - Environmental Assessment of the Proposed W12A Landfill Expansion

Moved by M. van Holst

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated January 11, 2022, related to the Environmental Assessment Study Report for the Environmental Assessment of the Proposed W12A Landfill Expansion

a)        the Environmental Assessment Study Report BE APPROVED; and,

b)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to submit the Environmental Assessment Study Report to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks for approval by the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by M. van Holst

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by M. van Holst

Seconded by E. Holder

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program: Public Transit Stream Intake 3

2022-1-11- SR - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program - Public Transit Stream Intake 3

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit the projects identified in the staff report dated January 11, 2022 to Intake 3 of the Public Transit Stream of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP);

it being noted that the communication from A. Oudshoorn, with respect to this matter, was received. (2021-F11)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

CWC DEFERRED MATTERS as at December 23, 2021

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by J. Helmer

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at December 23, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 1:38 PM.

Full Transcript

Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.

View full transcript (1 hour, 46 minutes)

do another sound check from chambers now that we’re streaming from chambers. Was that good? I’m just waiting for my stream to catch up. Hold on a second.

We’re good. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone.

This is a second meeting the Civic Works Committee and the first meeting for us for 2022. So welcome. If committee members could just put their cameras on, you’ve all logged on. So we do have corn.

We just need to visually firm that. Thank you and welcome to visiting Councillors as well. And for committee, I have Councillor 5 Mallar in chambers with me and the rest of you are all virtual today. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for councils, standing advisory committee meetings and information upon request.

To make requests up for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact cwc@london.ca. I will look to committee for disclosures of pecuniary interest. See none.

For consent items today, we have seven items before us, 2.1 through to 2.7. Would any committee members like any item dealt with separate? Mr. Van Holst, you’re muted.

Yes, 2.6 and 2.7. Would anyone like anything else outside of 2.6 and 2.7 called separate? Seeing none, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder to put 2.1 through to 2.5 on the floor. Moved by Councillor 5 Mallar, seconded by Mayor Holder.

Looking for questions and comments from committee members in regards to items 2.1 through to 2.5. I will start my speaker’s list with Councillor Van Holst. Thank you, Madam Chair. My first question is about item 2.4 and the West London Dyke Phase 7 projects.

Looks like under seeing bridge, there was some other elements discovered. That’s what it was said. That’s what their report said. I’m wondering what was discovered that that caused us a need to increase the consulting fees.

Thank you, Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, when they were doing the work, we don’t have the actual drawings related to the rail and revetments. So during the actual construction work, they came into closer than they would have liked to to the footing structure.

So that’s why they had to do some more design work is just to ensure that they were treating that appropriately. As you’re all aware, there is a lot of time that goes into dealing with the railways so that that can be a challenge at times. And there’s also a few different hurdles that we had to go through as far as permitting. So there was no issue with the actual footing and compromising it, but there was some design work that we had to account for.

A follow-up, Councillor Van Holst? I know that’s fine, Madam Chair. And then regarding 2.5, one, a certain big thanks to NEMTRO for being there to help us out with this situation where multiple pumps fail at the same time. So this was had to do with some of the grit in the water.

Perhaps we could have just a sliming, more detailed description of how the pumps failed or the conditions under which that happened. Thank you, Mr. Mathers. Through you, Arshab, absolutely.

We actually have Kirby Odacirk on the call, so he’s going to provide you some further details. Perfect, Mr. Odacirk? Yes, thank you.

Through the chair, Wonderland pumping station actually receives quite a large grit load from the upstream sewer system as well as our septage receiving. This is a condition that we’re hoping to improve or we know will improve with the construction of the new Dingling Creek pumping station. But in the short term, it’s still presenting a high wear load down at that station. The way that we handle our pump duty rotation ensures that we are not overloading any one pump, but unfortunately in a high wear situation, sometimes that can result in multiple pumps going at the same time.

So it really was just a matter of continued wear and they just all happened to hit at the same time. Usually that doesn’t happen. It just was sort of a perfect storm for us in this situation. Follow up, Councillor Vanholst?

Okay, thank you. And what will we be doing differently until that new pumping station comes online? Yes, again, through the chair, the new pumping station is actually going to have screening and grit removal facilities built into it. So rather than receiving all of those flows in and then pumping them into the downstream sewer to be removed at Greenway, we’re actually going to remove them at the source to eliminate the wear on the downstream components, including the high lift pumps, both at Dingman and at Wonderland.

Councillor? Okay, thank you. So and when will that come online, that new screening process? It’s slated for completion at the end of this year.

Okay, and do we need to watch the pumps more close? Is there a chance that we could get a failure before that time? Again, through the chair, we don’t leave so this renewal should get us through this period to the one year. We will obviously be paying close attention to them as we do through preventive maintenance programs and periodic checks at the station.

And our impression is that it’s going to be fine to get us through this period and then the wear should greatly reduce following that point. Okay, well, thank you very much. I appreciate that information. Madam Chair, those are my questions to those items.

Thank you. To visiting Councillors, we have items 2.1 through to 2.5 on the floor. It’s my last call for questions if anyone has anything further on these items. Okay, seeing none, please calling the questions.

So be sure to vote in eScribe and log in if you haven’t already. Think the vote. The motion carries six to zero. Thank you.

Next in the strategic plan variance report. Councillor Vanholst, you had a concern about this one? You’re muted. Madam Chair, so I see that we’ve got a couple of items that are being pushed, pushed ahead.

One not too far, just till March. And then one, which is the plan for the connected and autonomous vehicles is that I guess that’s being pushed ahead to the next council. Now, I’m wondering if it’s possible for us to receive just an update on that issue before that time. I would like to see something in this term.

It doesn’t have to be the full strategic plan, but things are changing quickly. We hear a lot in the news about connected and autonomous vehicles. And I’m wondering if there’s a possibility to to receive something from staff. Would you be hoping for a verbal update or a written one?

Well, I think a verbal update might be fine. Okay, well, let’s ask staff then to staff. Thank you, Doug McCray here through the chair. Yeah, we’d be pleased to return to a committee with an update on the strategy development.

It’s something that we continue to have a key in eye on and will also be considered as we work on the mobility master plan. The connected and automated vehicle strategy is intended to be a standalone document. There has been some consultation on it to date. And again, we continue to be cognizant of the issue as we develop our planning processes and documents.

And we’d be happy to keep committee apprised with a return visit later this year. Thank you, Mr. McCray. Councilor Van Holst.

Thank you. No, we’ll hurry for that, Madam Chair. Sometime in the summer, maybe it would be great to hear what kinds of things are happening in that. So at that, I’m happy to move the motion.

Thank you. Moved by Councilor Van Holst and seconded by Councilor Miller. Looking for any further questions or comments on items 2.6? Seeing none, calling the question.

Seeing the vote, the motion carries 6-0. Item 2.7 is our last item on the consent. This is the Ontario regulation on-site and excess soil management item. Councilor Van Holst, you had a question regarding this one?

I did, Madam Chair, and was wondering about just how much, how many, how much soil testing do we do at the city? Could we get an idea of what our needs are? Thank you. If staff want to take this opportunity of why this is different or before us, and it hasn’t been before, present background information for committee, that’s allowable as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to the Council’s question, we do not do soil testing in house at the city. There is testing required related to construction, required related to a variety of environmental functions. Each of those are done through accredited labs that are in the private sector.

There is certainly a fair bit of work that happens, but it’s not all the same sort of work. We do not have the facilities, the accreditation, or the staff to do that work in house right now. Councilor? Thank you.

That was helpful. I realized that we don’t do the work, but I wanted to get an idea of how many samples we might have to test in a year if we could get an estimation of that. Mr. Chair?

Madam Chair, I’m afraid I don’t have that number. It could be quite extensive on various construction projects. Certainly, I do have Jeff Hatch here, who’s our hydrogeologist who can give us a bit of a sense of the testing regime that’s associated with the report that’s in front of you, if that’s helpful. But in terms of soil testing for things like compaction, for organics, for contamination, for structural integrity, those tests are all done through our consulting services associated with construction projects, and they would number in the many hundreds certainly.

Thank you. Mr. Hatch, do you have anything to add to the councilor’s question? No, I think through the chair, it would be really project-dependent in terms of how many samples are collected on any given project.

Previous to this regulation, we were under a due diligence umbrella, so really just trying to inform tender documents to allow contractors to pick appropriate locations for either re-use or disposal. But to Ms. Shear’s point, it would be in the hundreds in terms of on an annual basis. But we wouldn’t have the actual number because it would really vary depending on the year and the type of projects that we’re undertaking.

Thank you. Councillor, a follow-up question? Thank you. So my question would be in the hundreds, is that does that number warrant us looking at establishing a lab for the city where we can do this, do this ourselves?

I know I believe that there are some other municipalities that may have some testing facilities, and I know I believe one, and I had some discussion with our staff about it. There is at least one other municipality that had their own asphalt plant, which coincidentally is something that Councillor Morgan has has inquired about since the city does so much asphalt. So I’m wondering if there’s some reason that we might request staff look at a business case for some labs that we do for a lab of our own. So we could address that.

Madam Chair, the majority of cities in Canada have gotten out of operating their own soil slabs if they had done. So at one point, the only two exceptions I’m aware of, and I’m not actually sure if they’re still in place, are my former city Regina and Calgary, because they do own their own cold mix asphalt labs or asphalt plants. So you have to do regular testing as that product is produced for use by the city. To get into that business, a new line of work would be a very substantial undertaking.

I would think that we’d have to do a fair bit of scoping to understand are the detail of our current costs, where we would be appropriate to do owner provided testing. A lot of these can be used in contract disputes, those sorts of issues, where us doing our own testing may be a difficult thing in terms of the mediation process, where we’re dealing with a contractor, a proper owner who doesn’t agree with our results. It certainly would be a very big capital and staffing investment to get into. We have not done the detailed economic assessment of that, but based on other cities who did previously have those facilities no longer maintaining that service in a house, my feeling is it likely would not be an economical opportunity for the city to bring back or to start as a new service within the city of London.

Thank you, Miss Cher. Councilor, a final follow-up or are you satisfied? I think those answers were very helpful. So my gratitude to staff and to you Madam Chair, I’m also happy to put this item on the floor.

All right, you can put that on. I’m happy to move the motion. Let’s say that. Thank you.

So moved by Councilor Vanholz, seconded by Mayor Holder, looking for any further questions or comments in regards to item 2.7, recognizing the motion is to simply receive the report. Seeing none, calling the question. Seeing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. That concludes our consent items and moves us on to scheduled items.

We have one item, which is going to be a public participation meeting. Before opening the public participation meeting, Mr. Stanford is here with several staff members, which he’ll introduce to us. He has a presentation that’s included in the added agenda for everyone’s reading and viewing pleasure as we follow along, recognizing his presentation will be about 10 to 12 minutes.

So I look forward to this as it’s about four and a half years of work and a culmination of that so it’s going to be presented to us for information. So Mr. Stanford, please proceed. Floor is yours.

Mayor and Madam Chair. Yeah, I can see your screen online. Perfect. Great.

Well, thank you very much for this opportunity. With us today, Madam Chair, are four of the members. Mike Locey, Division Manager of Waste Management, Jane Kippert, Waste Technician. Wesley Abbott, he has been our Environmental Assessment Coordinator and Project Manager, he’s a former city staff member as well.

And Trish Edmond, she’s a geo-environmental engineer from Gulder, and Gulder has been our technical consultant for the last four and a half years and has not only undertaken a number of the technical studies for the EA, but has also pulled together a lot of the reports working closely with Mr. Abbott. The presentation here today, as you noted, about 10 to 12 minutes can cover off three areas. We’ve been at this since 2017, and the environmental assessment process, and this one is referred to as an individual environmental assessment, is probably one of the most comprehensive the city has ever undertaken.

It was done in two phases. And the interesting part of phase one, it’s really the terms of reference or preparing the outline for the project. And that lasted about a little over two years and through extensive community engagement, dealing with the Waste Management Working Group, input from many. We finally produced and then submitted your terms of reference, and that was approved by the Minister of the Environment in July 30th, 2019.

The elements of that terms of references truly are the parameters for undertaking the environmental assessment are on your screen now. Designing for a 25-year timeframe, a commitment for 60% waste diversion, there was discussion in the agreement on a small portion of capacity remaining available for outside of our boundaries, for the regional capacity per se, and the amount was about 5%. And then taking our approved capacity on annual basis of 650,000 tons, and reducing that down to 500,000 tons. Then once the terms of reference have approved, of course, launched into all the technical program associated with the EDA.

And that is an extremely comprehensive process to get as to where we are today at the Environmental Assessment Study Report stage. The landfill, if you recall, we looked at three alternatives, moving up in your top left corner, increasing the height of the landfill site. There was the top right corner where we extended the landfill boundary over to the east, and then we looked at a portion going to the northern area. So those were the three alternatives.

All three alternatives went through a comprehensive by technical review, about 12 different study components covering the environment, social and technical aspects were examined, and then growing up was the preferred option, preferred to was option number one. All this, of course, was done through community engagement, many, many different kinds of meetings, workshops, technical sessions, and discussions, including open houses. And most of this was done during the pandemic, which posed its own challenges, but we’re extremely grateful for what people had to endure to contribute their comments, their advice, and their wisdom. And that was from not only the provincial agencies, but right through local First Nation groups and our local community.

Some of the highlights of the work, of course, looking at groundwater protection measures and additional investment that will be made to make our landfill site that much more safe to dealing with our beach collection system, about a $500 million, sorry, a $5 million investment associated with this, above and beyond what we’re normally doing in this particular area. Working on landfill gas, a huge priority for a variety of reasons. Some of the adjustments included, including horizontal collectors into the waste, in addition to the traditional vertical collectors, as well as work done in our order management and dust management programs. One of the technical studies dealing with archeology rather revealed some locations we need to avoid, and one is actually happens to be in the northern buffer area of the landfill site, not in the landfill per se, but in the buffer area.

So an area that we need to avoid. To do with climate change and primarily the adaptation side of climate change, planning for severe weather and more severe weather. And to do with that, we actually have to look at more water flowing around the landfill site and potentially through the landfill site. In that case, a number of adjustments have been made to the technical equipment that will be required at the landfill site.

Other minor adjustments included the site leakage storage to help weather those ending storms. Working on the former management bonds to basically increase their size and how they manage water before it is released locally. And other items that you see on the screen. Previously, we’ve been before committee and we talked about the capital cost of the landfill site on the range between 55 and 90 million dollars, depending on how all the alternatives shook out.

In the annual budget this year, you would have seen for the first time the amount of 79 million dollars, which has been allocated for the next 25 years and could ease dollars. As far as operating, our area included as well might be a little tough to see on your screen, but in your package, you’ll see that we’re operating in different phases. We’re starting in the bottom left corner, phase one E and moving northward. And as part of all that, the operations will be done to improve screening of the waste operations as we move forward.

Section two, and the report that’s before you today, highlights the comments that have been received over the last, I would say, last year as we got into the completion of the technical studies and then the technical review. And essentially, we received a lot of comments and we expected that. On the screen, you see that we’ve divided into sort of two main categories, the government review team and the many different agencies within the government, a provincial government that participate, as well as our local conservation authorities. And then at the bottom, the public and of course, one of the first nation, the Chippewa is very engaged.

With respect to the government review agencies, one, we’re very pleased it builds a better product and everything was addressed and only some minor changes as you see at the bottom with respect to the technical work. A lot of clarification, a lot of understanding and improvements made, no doubt about it. And the same can be said by our engagement with the local community and First Nation. It’s always great to share information, share learnings, and ensure people understand what is occurring on your screen or items from the report today.

And we’ll talk a little bit more about this in a few minutes. But we had a lot of good dialogue. Locally, I say locally around our landfill site, our local neighbors. Many are part of what’s referred to as the W12A Public Liaison Committee.

Many of them maybe on the line today, listening in, they’ve been extremely active as some as have many of the individual neighbors, not a surprise. In fact, we’ve had involvement from them for decades. And based on where we proposed we’re heading, it’ll be decades into the future as well. And the local area is a priority to us and always has been and will be.

The landfill site itself, no real changes since before the committee and council and the community. There have been tweets here and there. But what you see on the screen is that we are going up at the landfill site. We’ve added some buffer areas to work with.

And yes, the height of the landfill site will increase. A couple of other updates that are very tied to this whole project, Madam Chair. The community enhancement and mitigated measures program, that process has been running parallel. We’ll be coming forward shortly with a report and you’ll get that date in a minute.

We’ve been out to the community several times, shared comments, shared the input we received from others to make sure everyone is aware what others are thinking on these matters. We’re at the point now where we’ve received, we believe everything we can get from the community. And that is now being packaged up and will be brought forward in a form of report. Our discussions with the Chippewaas have resulted in the desire on both sides to further an ongoing discussion.

And right now we are indicating that perhaps twice a year will be enough. They’re very interested in our long term resource recovery plan, renewable natural gas, and how that is going to be developed to the landfill site. And a lot of interest on our climate change lens process and how that can actually be applied to renewable natural gas protocol working on, transportation of waste in general, and of course through landfill site. All items that are actually currently part of our plan program right now and are easy to share and receive advice and thoughts from others on.

And finally, we’re heading with these particularly reports. We’ll be back in front of the Civil Works Committee with what we believe will be our revisions to our proposed revisions rather for the community enhancement and mitigated measures program and our recommendations for further discussion with committee. That’ll be in March. In the March April timeframe, we will be bringing forward what we’re going to call post policies for operating the expanded landfill site.

But these aren’t the provincial government policies. These are council policies. And these would deal with such items as how and when and if that 5% capacity that has been set aside for our regional neighbors could be used and under what types of conditions. So that’ll be a document in the March April timeframe.

And then finally, because it’s all tied in and always of interest to the Civil Works Committee, we’ve been implementation. Our report will come forward in March April. We’ll have final information at that point, of course, on the trucks and when they’ll be arriving in the city. And of course, other activities associated with waste diversion.

And it’s important relationship with the climate emergency action plan that’ll be before the strategic priorities and policy committee early in the month of February. And Madam Chair, my last slide is just a reminder that a report that is before you today deals with this entire package. And I can just indicate one more time, four and a half years of work, a lot of work put in by members of the community. A lot of interest on the project, but those most interested spending a lot of time on this are those that will likely be the most impacted by future landfilling in the area.

And to be honest, we’re pleased with how our neighbors react and participate. And we’re grateful for their ongoing work that they contribute to this particular project. Madam Chair, I will appreciate that. Thank you, Mr.

Stanford, to you and your staff for all the work you’ve done behind the scenes. Recognizing Ward 12 is home to the W12 Bay landfill. Greatful for all the extra work we do behind the scenes with residents and the public liaison committee as well. So thank you for that.

I will now look for a mover and a seconder to open our public participation meeting. Moved by Councillor van Merberg and seconded by Councillor Vanholst calling the question. I think the vote, the motion carries 6 to 0. To the committee clerk to confirm if anything is if anyone has shown up in committee rooms 1 or 2.

Madam Chair, we don’t have any delegations present in committee room 1 and 2. Could you confirm if anyone’s on the line for us today as well? Madam Chair, we don’t have any participants on Zoom as well for public participation meeting. Thank you.

I know we’ll note that the media has covered this topic as well. So recognize that there’s nobody in person or on the line wing to speak for us today and nobody in chambers as it’s a pandemic. Looking for someone to move the closure of the public participation moving. Moved by Councillor Vanholst, seconded by Councillor Mayor or Councillor Mayor Holder.

He has to be both seconded by Mayor Holder calling the question. Seeing the vote, the motion carries 6 to 0. Looking to now start a speaker’s list of committee members and visiting Councillors for any questions you might have in regards to item 3.1 and the motion that’s before us. I will start my speaker’s list with Councillor Vanholst.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And so I have a few technical questions. First, I want to thank our staff for a very very fierce report and very packed with information. I wanted to know a little bit about a little more about the leachate, noting that in the other two strategies for dealing with the landfill, it looked like updating a leachate system would be a little more simple, whereas going straight up, it might be a little more challenging.

So I want to find out a little more about how those challenges are being met. To staff? Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll ask if I may be misderivative to chip in on that.

Welcome, Mr. Abbott, and please proceed when you’re ready. It’s wonderful to see you again. So Mr.

Vanholst is correct that if we had gone out laterally, we could have continued with the sort of the same underdrain leachate collection system that we had been using previously. And going up does require some changes to design. And essentially, all we do is we have to put a stone drains with pipes on the top of the existing landfill site. And that is technically a little more unusual, because as landfill sites settle, you have to allow for that in the design stop.

But other than that, it’s fairly straightforward. And we will be putting those across the top, as well as a bunch of French trains down the sides to prevent the one that leachate, because they’re going higher than it’d be more mounting. And that’ll protect the sides from any leachate coming off the side. Councilor Vanholst.

Thank you. That was helpful. I also wanted to inquire about the improved screening. And so, if our staff or consultants could elaborate a little bit on that, what should we expect to see with the improved screening?

Okay, through the chair, I’ll start on that. The screening is going to be extremely key. Not only is it going to be with some of the basics, such as tree planting, and also positioning trees, not only close to the landfill site, but also in areas where they can actually screen better by being closer to properties in the area. The other part of the screening system is how we build our berms.

And Mr. Rosie is one who will be actually operating the landfill site. So, Mr. Rosie, if you could chip in on sequencing and screening and burning.

Thank you. And through the chair, in one of the slides that was part of Jay’s presentation, you saw that there was a sequencing of phases of cells that will be constructed as part of this expanded landfill site. As we construct the southern portion of those cell phases, the idea is to place the waste in such a way that the landfilling activities behind it will be screened to the south. And then, in addition to berms, as Mr.

Stanford had noted, we intend to strategically locate some objects such as trees to help enhance with screening to the north of the landfill site. Thank you. That was page 85 of our agenda today for that different phases. And I would also like to thank staff, as I know I have joined them on site with some residents as well, with screening concerns as per their individual property requirements.

Councilor Van Holstow, follow-up? Thank you. Maybe I could just cycle back to the 2.2 item there. I didn’t ask some questions there waiting for our public participation meeting.

I wasn’t going to change anything, but I did want to ask about some of the costs of the reports that are needed. I see we’re spending almost $100,000 for to look at invasive species. Councilor, just frame it please with an item 3.1, the EA that’s going to be submitted to the province. Okay.

Well, actually, is that part of the the EA, the looking at invasive species? It seemed kind of odd to me that we would be looking at invasive species if we’re just going up. I don’t imagine there’s many bases. I should say, and not just invasive species, but species at risk.

I think that’s what I. Yeah, we do have species at risk at the landfill. Could staff please talk to that, those species and the management of it as we build up the berms? Take to that briefly.

So on the landfill site, we actually have 2 species that’s risk who have are living on the top of landfill site, the eastern middle art and the bobblink. And so to proceed forward with the expansion and go up vertically, we will be seeking approval from the Ministry of Environment for species at risk permit. And that will require a bunch of studies and some documentation to show how we’re going to be able to protect the species at risk by building adjacent habitat, keeping the total amount of habitat, the same throughout the life of landfill site. As we move the area where you landfill to one new space, we’re going to be creating another area for those birds to move into.

And there also have to be rules on like when we do that, we’ll have to avoid spring during the nesting season and stuff like that. And the cost of those that’s included in that budget is sort of the worst case to do all reports plus to additional studies if we need to do them on nesting and stuff. Councillor? Thank you.

Now, are these species on the landfill site because they’re finding food? Because we have the height of grass we do, and there’s nobody else there except for the landfill vehicle, maybe transversing near the grasses, they find it a suitable habitat. And so over time, they have moved in and they nest there in the tall grass. Okay.

Thank you very much. At the last issue I had Madam Chair was just about the maybe ask about landfill cover and that if we’re going up higher, it seems like there may be concerns about the wind blowing the landfill around. And I wonder if staff could could tell us a little bit about about that. How was that dealt with?

Mr. Stanford, who gets this lucky one? Mr. Rosie, we’ll trip you here.

Thank you through the chair. As part of our current operations, we actually employ a number of mobile screens that we place around our active tipping face that we use to capture as many materials on windy days as we can. That process is not 100% perfect. So we do have, as part of our landfill operation work, we do go around and spend some time picking up litter and debris that has blown into adjacent roadways and across the existing landfill site.

We don’t expect to continue these types of activities and operations through into the new site. And although the height of the landfill site is increasing, we will only be progressing in incremental stages and our existing operation around controlling litter. We believe should be sufficient. Thank you and welcome today, Mr.

Lucy. Councilor Vanholst, a follow-up are you satisfied? Oh, I think those are great answers. I appreciate you taking the extra time with me, Madam Chair, for those answers.

Thank you. And just as you made a comment earlier about the species at risk, not wanting the extra nutrients and food source, I believe that would be an issue addressed with our turkey vultures. And as we move forward with green bins and removing organic waste out of the landfill as a food source. Looking to committee members for further questions or comments and visiting counselors as well, as at the moment my speaker’s list is exhausted.

Looking for a mover and a seconder that report be received and then forwarded on to the ministry, moved by Councillor Vanholst seconded by Councillor Vailar calling the question. I think the motion carries six to zero. Okay, that concludes the scheduled items. Under items for direction, we have investing in candidate infrastructure program, public transit stream and take.

The motion before us is that staff be directed to submit the projects identified here and take three, the public transit stream of the investing and candidate infrastructure program. Okay, I know some counselors had approached with questions on this first. So I will entertain questions before moving to a mover and a seconder. Do you want to, I’ll start my speaker’s list with Councillor Vailar.

Thank you, Chair. And through you, one of the questions I had is the list that was supplied. Is that a, is that a defined locked in list? Or is that more meant to be an example of what could be to staff?

Thank you through the chair. The list of projects are provided for Council approval. They, both of them tend to be in a sort of a program format. So compiling a compilation of smaller projects.

And so within that, the intent is that there is some adaptability and flexibility within those individual projects to both provide the best projects and also utilize all the available funding as the projects and programs progress. Thank you. I will note that some of the projects were road related with Mr. McCray and some were parks related with Mr.

Stafford. So Mr. Stanford’s here as well for questions. Councillor, a follow-up?

No, I’m good. Thank you very much. Sure. Okay, I will recognize committee members before visiting Councillors.

So I do see Councillor Lewis and I will get to you. I will recognize Councillor Van Merberg and next and then Mayor Holder. Thank you, Chair. I’d like to start by if I could get some more clarification with the projects recommended for submission table one.

The first item is $14 million. So that’s a good chunk of this proposal. I’m just wondering if I could get a little bit further information exactly what we’re talking about here. Is this strictly painted bike lanes across the city or is there something else included?

Maybe we could just have a more fulsome description of this. Thank you for that question to the staff. Through the chair, the new on-road cycling facilities project is a compilation of projects guided by the cycling master plan. So it’s bike lanes on existing roadways and there could be painted lanes.

There could be lanes with protection. We’re hearing from the community that there is more protection required to make the lanes comfortable and usable for a typical rider of all ages and abilities. And there’s also projects that could include more of a boulevard bike lane style, which we also do receive positive feedback from those types of facilities. Councillor Vammerberg, are you going to follow up?

Yeah, I appreciate that. My second question is with regard to the electrified bus situation that we’ve already committed as a council to that project. We’re actually contributing quite a bit of money into that project for the electrified bus program, not only vehicles but infrastructure. I’m wondering would this particular program that the government’s offering regarding public transit, could we offload some of that burden that we’re carrying as a city at the municipal level, the municipal contribution, because it’s in the tune of millions.

Could we offload some of that as a project that may qualify for this particular program as well? Is that in the realm of possibility? Thank you to staff. Through you, Madam Chair, I can take that question.

So what we’re suggesting for the approved business case that was addressed through the 2022 budget update process is that the zero emissions bus implementation strategy be funded through the zero emissions transit fund. Now that program and we will concede that we are still awaiting full details on what exactly the criteria in the program parameters are for that program. But our current understanding is that that will a program will cover up to 50% of the total costs of implementing our zero emissions bus program. Having said that, the public transit stream that we’re dealing with here, the ICIP program, it very well could be an alternate funding source for the zero electric zero emissions bus strategy as well.

But there is some, I suppose, uncertainty around what elements of the zero emissions bus strategy could be funded through key tests. So these zero emissions bus program requires not only buses, but also charging infrastructure, facility upgrades as well. And there is some, I guess, uncertainty or lack of clarity that we would further need to investigate in order to pursue PTIS as a potential funding stream for the zero emissions bus program. That being said, it is a possibility, it is a potential funding source, but not what was recommended and approved through the budget amendment in the 2022 budget update.

Thank you, Mr. Murray, Councillor Van Merbergen. Okay, I appreciate that response. But I guess what I’m trying to get at is if it may be in the realm of possibility, since the municipal contribution, I don’t have the exact figure in front of me, but in terms of the electrified bus and infrastructure, I think it was about 12.5 million after we got the 50% from the federal government.

So what I’m asking is it possible to use that for that 12.5 million to be funded in an additional program to help our burden with that. And I’d also like to know, if we pass this list today, are we locked into this? Because I think what I’m hearing is we’re still learning about what we cannot do with some of these programs with regard to the electrified bus program. And it may very well be a very nice fit on this list.

In some shape or form, are we negating our ability to do that if we pass this current list? Or is there still some flexibility in room as we proceed? Mr. Murray, would you like to start this one off?

I certainly can. Thank you, Madam Chair. So as it relates to the Zero Missions Bus program, the Councillor’s recollection is quite accurate. The total cost of that full initiative was approximately a little bit shy of $26 million.

So 50% would be in the neighborhood of approximately $13 million. What I will note though is that it is highly unlikely that we would be able to stack funding in this case. So in other words, we could not in all likelihood pursue the Zero Emissions Transit Fund and then also pursue the public transit stream of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program. It typically is a one or the other type of situation.

I will maybe defer to Mr. McCray on the second half of the question with respect to what extent we are locked in. Thank you, Mr. McCray.

Thank you. With the approval of this list by Council, the next step would be to for staff to pull together project applications for submission to the program. So that would essentially dedicate those funds that are currently not available, not approved through previous intakes or committed to other pro projects. So past that project approval, it would require some sort of program administrator approval to then to change direction on those.

Councillor van Merbergen. And just a reminder, we are at committee. So I can certainly go to someone else on the speaker’s list and loop back if we generate more questions as we go. Perhaps just one last point.

So as we know, this particular program, because the province is involved, covers 73% versus the 50%. So I’m just wondering if I appreciate the comment from Mr. Murray earlier that he doesn’t think that we can do stack funding. But I’m just wondering if staff could look at that and maybe report back at a future civic works committee in terms of a yay or nay, just so that we cover that base.

Because if there’s money that we can put towards that big commitment for electrified vehicles, then we should certainly explore all opportunities to lower the burden on the on the city taxes. So I’ll just leave it at that. Thank you. Mr.

Murray, do you believe it would be possible if you get an answer for, I guess, either before Council recognizing it’s out of your hands sometimes, how quickly people respond or for another CWC update? Certainly we can we can try to endeavor to obtain more information. I am fairly certain, however, that the response will be that we are not able to stack. But we can certainly follow up on that.

I think maybe the the only other point that I will add is that the the PTIS program was a funding program that we looked at as we were considering potential funding sources for the zero emissions bus business case as well. And Councillor Van Mirbergen is quite correct that the benefit of the PTIS program is that it provides up to 73% of the funding rather than 50% under the zero emissions transit fund. However, our I guess rationale for suggesting the zero emissions transit fund is that it’s very much a purpose built funding program specifically for electric transit buses. Whereas the PTIS program has far broader eligibility, I would suggest, and it opens up other potential projects that could be eligible for funding.

So part of our rationale for suggesting zero emissions transit fund for the zero emissions bus business case was to maintain that flexibility to put forward other types of projects under the PTIS program such as the active transportation programs that you see before you today. So I thought I’d just be helpful to add that for other context as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Murray, mentioning that the way that we’re talking into two programs for funding versus one. I will move on. Councillor Van Mirbergen, you’re good for now and I’ll move on to Mayor Holder. Okay, I recognize Mayor Holder followed by Councillor Van Host.

Thanks, Chair. I’d like to thank Mr. McCrae and our finance team for putting some considerable funds to this project. I just want to go by the number so just so it’s clear to me.

You’ll recall in our first year of this council term, this council came forward and supported 10 projects. Those were transit projects that represented 100 members. I’m just going to look at my numbers here, folks, $124 million, almost federally, $103 million, potentially $148 million, municipally, because of some project funding that we had hoped we could keep to the same formula, but there were some allocations that were not approved. But what that meant was an allocation in total then of some $375 million.

Now, if my math is correct and maybe this is for Mr. Murray, I’m not sure. The remaining funds at the federal and provincial level is somewhere in the $148 million range, which means that if we’re allocating amongst three levels of government, $40 million, that in my math leaves us at some point with additional funds to be able to consider other projects subject to timeline constraints. I wonder, Mr.

Murray, could you give me some advice with regard to how those numbers work just so I know that my math is reasonable? Thank you, Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair.

So the mayor’s math is accurate. So there is a remaining approximately $148 million after the approval of those 10 transit related projects that the mayor referenced. This report before you today would utilize approximately $40 million or so of, or I guess, $29 million of federal and provincial funding, $40 million in total. So that would leave approximately a little shy of $120 million now.

You will recall that that funding was earmarked in our budget for the north and the west legs of the RT system, which were not submitted for approval at this point through the PTES program. That being said, that funding, as the mayor indicated, will remain available in our capital plan to utilize towards whatever ultimate solution council elects to proceed with as it relates to potential transit support in the north and the west areas of the city. Or I guess, or I guess wherever we choose to put it, I know, Mr. Murray, you’ve indicated north and west, but it could be wherever we choose to put it subject to the terms of reference I presume.

Am I wrong on that? Through you, Madam Chair, that is absolutely correct. It could be used in whatever project is in compliance or within the program parameters of the PTES program. That is correct.

So that’s really helpful to me. And so because knowing that we’ve got something in excess of $100 million available, and I’m going to build a bit on what Councillor Ben Mirbergen said, here we’ve got $0.73. We thought we did the last time. And I think Councillor Lewis pointed out at one stage, it wasn’t quite that, if you recall, because we had that circumstance where some of the project money that we put in a request for was not approved.

I think it had to do with monies associated with land acquisition, something along that line. But I think my only, I can work with these projects with the understanding that we don’t lose our $0.73 at the provincial federal level. I’ll just call it a little bit. But that we have, I don’t at one point, the committee had asked that a variety of projects come back that we could consider and look at.

Not unlike the cornucopia projects that we picked 10, and those 10 ultimately got approved. So what I’m concerned about is A, we don’t lose the funds, which we can do if for any reason a project cannot be completed within the specific timeframe. And you’re going to tell us exactly when that is, Mr. Mirbergen, I think it was 2027.

But how comfortable or confident are staff with the notion of presenting other viable projects for council to consider that could meet a time deadline and still satisfy the three-way split of the funding that was approved for London? Big question, but that’s correct. To start, Mr. Chair.

And if you don’t mind, I’ll start with this, and perhaps if Mr. McCray wants to add anything else, right? So we have no concerns with the projects that are before you. We know they need the criteria and they can be delivered well.

We are evaluating how to spend the remaining funds that are currently targeted for the north and the west transit improvements. But as the mayor has noted, it could be used on a city-wide basis or any project that meets this criteria. Those are being reviewed through the Mobility Master Plan. We also could consider any other projects that were to come forward, such as an expansion of electrification at London Transit or other needs from LTC.

Should those arise from LTC’s own planning work? We are hoping that we’re going to keep in a position that we can maximize spending all of that money by the end of the eligibility period. It will depend on the nature of the projects that come out of the MMP, a massive news, say, rapid transit corridor, who would require a teap process, which does take time. But there are a number of improvements that could be done within that timeframe as the MMP mobility master plan unfolds.

Pardon me. So I don’t have a crystal ball for perfection, but we are very cognizant of that deadline, and we’ll be bringing things forward to Committee and Council in tandem with Mobility Master Plan versus waiting till final completion, so that we can continue to advance projects that are ready to go, that meet the objectives of that plan and of our growing city in a way that’s timely. I don’t think it has to be we get to the finish line, and then we start talking about people comes out of that plan. I think we have the opportunity to continue to engage with Committee and Council throughout the planning process to make sure that we’re advancing projects that need these criteria and let us spend that money that we have allocated to London in a responsible or timely way.

Okay, thank you. Chair, final comment if I could please. Certainly. And that is that we sometimes have a tendency to rely on our staff to come up with these various ideas.

And I think all things considered, sincerely, I think they provide very thoughtful ideas for us, but I’d like to challenge this Committee and other members of Council with the remaining funds, particularly if there’s something that’s going to be more intensely involved. But if there are some appropriate allocations to be considered going forward beyond this, and that we could, and I really, what I’m less interested in, are people working in silos as perhaps even having some discussion at this Committee, even if you’re not a member of this Committee, so as we go forward, we have a sense where some of the priorities Councillors are thinking, we had some notions around that before, if you recall, what’s going to happen in the West, what’s going to happen in the North, we know it doesn’t have to be those, but bottom line to Mr. Chair’s comment, we don’t leave anything here on the table. I think it was great we got the federal and provincial supports, but we were not prepared to leave a damn thing on the table.

So that’s it for me. And thank you to staff for their answers on that. Thank you. I will just loop back and ask Mr.

McCray if there was anything else you want to add on to Ms. Chair’s prior response to Mayor Holder. I will Mr. Chair answered by concisely and completely.

Thank you. Thank you. Next on my speaker’s list, I have Councillor Van Holst and then Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair.

So I wanted to ask a couple questions here. The first one is on the item one in the table, it’s describing the new cycling lanes, being able to increase the transit’s catchment area. And I wonder if staff could describe how that works. To staff?

Yeah, the transit catchment area generally refers to the the area surrounding, for example, a bus stop, like a transit stop and transit riders are being able to make a reasonable trip to that stop. So cycling facilities that are comfortable can extend that catchment area by having a distance longer than just a walking distance. So being able to travel the longer distance by bicycle can potentially increase the catchment and therefore the transit ridership. Okay, Councillor Van Holst.

Okay, thank you. So I suppose that would depend on two things. Either the the person would bring their bike with them on the bus or we have to provide parking for the buses and for the bikes. And I see that that’s included in there.

Are those two items connected this the 14 million and the 200,000? That’s a second last on the list. To staff? While they’re identified as separate projects, they definitely work hand-in-hand in that the bike parking refers to secured bike parking in the area of rapid and conventional transit stops.

So, you know, perhaps a potential scenario would be somebody boarding outside of the downtown, putting their bicycle on the bus by carrier rack, arriving at their destination, and then using a secured bike parking facility to then walk their bicycle while they’re at their destination for a longer period of time. Councillor Van Holst. Okay, well, we also see bike parking out in I’ll just call them the fringes of so someone’s going to be able to ride their bike to the closest bus stop, park it there, and then go downtown if that’s their destination. To staff, Mr.

McRae. Yes, that’s one possibility. The location of the bike parking, the secured bike parking has not yet been determined, but it’ll generally, you know, tend to focus at the higher ridership transit stops. Councillor, are you excited?

Thank you, I see that we’re investing more in the Thames Valley Parkway. I have to say that’s always one of my favorite things to see, even more than raindrops on roses or whiskers on kittens. So, I do want to ask if about, I’m thrilled with that. As I see up at the top of that particular page 74, we’re looking at renewing aging Boulevard bike paths.

And I see that I see roads where we have long stretches of bike path and also long stretches of sidewalk. And I wonder if we wouldn’t be in those situations better off with a single wider route like the Thames Valley Parkway trail. And so, I’m wondering if there’s, is there an opportunity to do that along those listed routes here or the ones that have been intended? That’s for the $4 million.

Mr. McRae. The project identified, it identifies renewal of like old facilities. So, many of our Boulevard bike paths are in the order of 20, perhaps over 20 years old.

And they’re showing deterioration. They also don’t have, you know, there’s some inadequacies at intersection crossings. So, that’s also part of the project. The concept of building sort of multi-use paths to satisfy both the sidewalk and cycling facility need is reasonable in certain circumstances and is considered where appropriate it tends to be along corridors with few access points, driveways, intersections, and also with lower pedestrian numbers.

And there is guidance on that in the recent provincial design manual. And the main consideration there is the Accessibility Frontarions with Disabilities Act and providing safe corridors for pedestrians. Councillor. Okay.

Thank you. I bring up pedestrians. I don’t see a lot of pedestrians on those types of stretches. So, it seems to me that there that criteria of having it below would be met in many places.

My concern and perhaps you could comment on it is that over 60% of the funds are being used on cycling infrastructure. And so, I wanted to ask about that. Mind you, I do think when we’re widening the bridges, making those better for cycles and pedestrians, I think that 11, 5 is a good use and certainly it’s being done as those are needed. So, I guess they’re my question.

Just comment on the amount of the funds that’s being spent on cycling infrastructure. And I have one last question. Hey, Mr. McCray.

Just looking quickly at the list under the lens of purely cycling improvements, I think purely cycling is limited to the first project that on-road cycling facilities. The remainder are either pedestrian facilities or accommodation projects that benefit all active transportation and so walking and cycling. And yeah, that answers the question. Thank you.

Councillor deadhouse, your final question. The final question was, were all these projects already in the budget? So, if they were, then in one way, it doesn’t really matter where they go because it would just displace funds that taxpayers would otherwise be contributing. So, there’s my question.

Have we added some things that we haven’t considered before or all these things presently in our budgeted plan? Mr. McCray. The projects are generally identified in programs and plans.

That gives the guidance towards how we build infrastructure. But they are not all budgeted. Generally speaking, like these sort of these program projects, which are a lot of these, we are leveraging the additional funding from the province and federal government to increase the size of these annual programs and delivering a lot more of the projects than we would have previously been able to do under with just the Solis City funding. Thank you.

And if I can follow up to that, certainly expanding the programs is something we can do. Although, I do think that using the funds to pay for our existing projects and keeping the tax rate down is also something that I would be in favour of. So, I’m not so sure if I’m so much in support of the expanded programs as covering the costs of the ones that we do have budgeted. Those are my comments.

Madam Chair. Councillor Lewis, welcome to committee and please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. And happy New Year to all the committee members that I haven’t seen yet for yesterday’s committees.

I have a number of both questions and comments. So, I’ll try and be focused and I’m going to ask the first question very specific to one of the items that’s referenced where it’s a project in Ward 2. And that is with the active transportation improvements across bridge pinch points. Dundas Street over Pottersburg Creek is identified in there, which certainly for pedestrian crossing there, it’s not perfect by any stretch of the imagination.

But that project’s scheduled to go ahead this summer. So, I’m concerned that I’m seeing a bridge pinch point that still needs federal approval and then has to be factored into the design phase for a project that really does need to go ahead this summer. So, through you, Madam Chair, my question to staff is around timelines and the feasibility of actually getting the funding approved that allows us to get something that’s set for this summer funded in this way. Mr.

McCray. The project identified in this report is related to a rehabilitation of that Pottersburg Creek bridge, the crossing bridge taking Dundas Street over the creek. That is a separate project from the various street improvements in that area. And it is near-term, but it is a few years out still.

And so, the idea is, while we’re rehabbed, rehabilitating that structure, that is a major project unto itself and needs to have its own timelines, that we implement a cost-effective widening using the ICID funds to improve walking and cycling. Okay, that’s good to know. And so, that’s related to the sanitary and storm sewer rehabilitation of the Pottersburg line, rather than the road rehabilitation piece is sort of what I’m hearing there, because I know that there’s an extensive and there’s an EA process going on. And so, that’s knowing that that’s not tied to this summer’s project is much more, gives me much more confidence.

I will say, for comments, just in general, a couple of things I want to know. The rehabilitation of the Boulevard bike lanes, such as Wonderland Road, I think, is an excellent use of this project funding. Certainly, very, very supportive of expanding the secure bike parking. And I will be taking Mayor Holder’s challenge on this up to talk to staff further.

I actually will take this conversation offline with Mr. McCray in more detail, but I’m a little concerned when I hear people will be expected to put their bikes on the bus and take it with them to come downtown. I think we need to be looking at secure bike parking locations at places like Argonne Mall, Masonville Mall, where people can secure their bikes in their own neighborhood and then take transit to their destination, whether that’s Sunfest or wherever the central library or to work, wherever they might be going. I think we need to start looking at neighborhood hub secure bike parking locations.

But as I said, that’s a discussion that we can have. I am going to pick up on something that Councilor Van Pols mentioned. I will say I’m a little uncomfortable with the fact that, and again, I’m not trying to dispute what staff are saying, but actually, the new on road cycling facilities at 14 million, the boulevard of bike lane renewal at another 4 million, and then we get into some of the bike parking things. We are looking at allocating nearly half of this round of funding to cycling projects.

And while I don’t dispute that there are some much needed cycling improvements in the city, what I don’t see on here are things like funding more bus shelters, so that transit is more rider-friendly. Closing our sidewalk gaps more quickly, particularly along some of the roads where they’re really needed to close a gap, where there’s sidewalks on one street and another street, and then a gap in between. And some of these on transit routes, and I’m not seeing us advancing those. So again, I appreciate Mayor Holder’s comments that as a Council, we should be talking to staff about ideas too, so I will pick up those discussions with Mr.

McCrae and Ms. Cher and others moving forward, because I think we do need to be looking at a more diverse range of projects, although every project that’s listed in this chart is something that I can support. I’m concerned about the balance of where we’re spending here. I did also have a question for staff that I wanted to ask, and I’ve experienced this myself, and I’ve experienced with a cycling project with the Wave L Street bike lanes, but I know those aren’t the only ones that I know there’s roads and there’s lighting improvements and other things.

What are we doing to factor in the very significant supply chain issues we’ve had with the ability to deliver on these projects? Or is that something that is still sort of an in-process discussion for you, Madam Chair? Thank you, to staff. Thank you.

I’ll just back up and thank the Councilor for the clarification on the distinction between if you’re cycling projects. I did notice that there are a couple others, but it’s both points well taken. The comment about LTC, the bus shelters, in the previous submission to this funding program, there was a bus stop amenities project that LTC put forward. LTC was involved in the discussions on the current program, and it didn’t add anything additional, and I believe they are still implementing that bus stop amenities project regarding the supply chain issues.

That is certainly a challenge for many of our capital projects. The entire Environment and Infrastructure team is very cognizant of it, and grappling with it on both projects and program level basis. With this program, the completion date is October 2027, so the supply chain issues are obviously unpredictable. We’ll commence work as early on these as we get approval prior to that, so hope we can manage that issue adequately.

If not worst case scenario, I suppose the program administrators tend to be sympathetic to these challenges, and if program extensions on that deadline were necessary, that would be one avenue we could pursue. Thank you. Council, you have 40 seconds left if you want to make any closing comments. Yeah, so I will say thank you for that.

I know that I’m sure the federal government is having supply chain issues too, so I would hope that they’d be understanding of those realities, but I am concerned about what is our capacity with those challenges, and I recognize that’s an ongoing discussion, so thanks to staff for that response. I would encourage continued discussions with LTC. I know we did get funding for 60 bus shelters in the last round. That’s still a significant gap in our bus shelter coverage for even some of our busiest stops, so I hope that discussion will continue.

Finally, I just want to circle back on a final comment, and particularly with the funding piece and the mayor’s comments, and I’m glad he recalled my points about property acquisition. I appreciate the desire to get the 73 cents on the dollar, but I also caution that that still requires 27 cents of municipal contribution, so hopefully we can make that work down the road, but I just throw that out as a caution as well. We may not spend all the money that’s on the table, because we do have to think about the municipal contribution required as well, and I’ll conclude there, Madam Chair, hopefully it was five or ten seconds left. Thank you, Councillor.

You did not. You’re at five minutes and 36 seconds, but I appreciate you showing up today and joining us, as always, Councillor Vanholst, is that a hand raised for further comment or an old hand? Okay, please proceed. Yes, I’m an old hand at leaving my virtual hand up.

My question then just is first, when do these applications need to be submitted? Yeah, I believe that date was in the report. I believe it’s open for a couple of years. Staff, could you just comment on the end date for submissions?

Yeah, thank you through the chair. Unlike previous intakes, this one has a long, it’s like a two-year window, and it’s open to all March 2024, but the intent with these projects to get moving on them is that we would submit applications as soon after a Council approval as possible in order to kick off that approval process and get progress going on the projects. Thank you, Councillor. I’ll allow a few more brief comments from you and just recognizing Councillor Hummer will be next, and he has not had an opportunity to speak yet.

Okay, well, thank you. And then I’d like to ask how long it might take our staff to come back with some project possibilities that are already in the budget for us. So that would be eligible for this. Again, I see we’re trying to expand programs.

I might prefer that that not be the case, and we’d like to see some other options. So if staff could let us know how much time they might need to come to come up with some projects where this money would actually reduce the demand on the taxpayer in London. To staff? Through the chair, I need to give the program guide a careful read-through of the typical requirement on these kind of funding programs is that new new work is being that it’s an incremental benefit.

And so a scenario whereby the funding is used to essentially deliver projects that were previously planned and underway to offset municipal funding may not be, may not meet the program intent. Thank you, Councillor. Okay, so well, we certainly have projects planned and budgeted for that that are new and incremental improvements. Are you saying that those are ineligible because they’ve already been approved by Council?

Ms. Chair, I see that you’ve come on screen. Would you like to answer this one? If I may, Madam Chair, if the Council has any projects in particular, he thinks might be eligible for this particular basket of funding.

We’re happy to take a look. We have reviewed our capital plan, and that’s where the origin of a lot of this discussion has come from. Noting that a lot of our spending on things like expanded roadways for growth that are DC funded by rehabilitation of existing assets that are not related to those last mile for a small active transportation transit solutions simply are ineligible in this project. We have had a lot of folks sending us ideas, a lot of things like intersection widening, and those simply just wouldn’t be eligible based on the criteria of this particular program.

But if there are suggestions in the existing capital program that you’d like us to take a closer look at, we’re very happy to do that. And then our next basket of projects is likely to come out of the mobility master plan. And as I said, when the mayor asked, our hope is that we can start doing some early identification on some of those major projects that would come out of that new needs planning for transit and active transportation. Thank you, Ms.

Chair, Councillor, anything further? That’s very helpful. I’m going to suggest one that, and that’s the warranted street lights. So we received a report back from our staff.

And on the street lights that were required, and there was quite a bit inside the city and quite a bit at the edges of the city, but those inside the city are the ones that that’s something that I would be more interested in moving ahead with. So perhaps they could look at that. At that point, Madam Chair, I’m happy to turn things over to Councillor Helmer. Thank you.

And I do know that even street lights have been having some supply chain issues as well. Councillor Helmer, there you are. Please proceed. Thank you.

I appreciate the report from staff. I support applying for the funding for these projects. I think these are good projects. It’s great to see that we can accelerate the construction of active transportation that’s connecting to transit as this come up in the discussion, and colleagues would be familiar with the funding eligibility for this particular source of funding is pretty tight.

You know, the active transportation connections to public transit. And I think we’re doing a good job here trying to find items that are going to help people get to transit so they can make those kind of multimodal trips, improve some of the active transportation connections crossings. I think this makes a lot of sense. And it’s something we can actually accomplish and construct before 2027.

And I guess the only comment I would make right now is it’s 2022. We’ve only got five years for all of the projects we’re going to do with this money that’s remaining to be completed, not planned or started, but completed. And as we’re coming up on the end of a council term this year, everyone has had a sense of how quickly or not things go. I’m concerned that we’re not going to use all the money that has been allocated to London, and that we’ll miss a massive opportunity that would be a real financial advantage to the property taxpayers in London, and the people are paying development charges.

If we don’t get our act together and apply for all of the funding, what I would say is beyond these projects, if you’re looking for a planned approved project that’s ready to go ahead, start with the West leg of rapid transit. The EA is done, transit priority, transit plan is done, the teapap is in the London plan, it’s in the development charges in our capital budget, it’s designed, just needs to be detailed design and build it. And if we don’t get on with doing something like that of that magnitude, we’re going to leave $100 million in the table and miss out, and the clock is really ticking. So, you know, these projects are good, I support them, I think we should apply for them, we should get on with building them, but sometimes we can delay and dither and really miss opportunities.

So, I hope we don’t, hope we don’t do that. Thank you, Councillor Helmer and Mayor Holder, here next. Thanks so much, I’m happy with the staff recommendation, Chair. Thank you, just for, as we do a mover and a seconder, it’s staff recommendation and also accepting the communication from Mr.

oddshern has been submitted. So, looking for a seconder by Councillor Fyff-Milar, looking for any further questions or comments from committee members or visiting Councillors, Councillor van Merbergen. Thank you, Chair. I wanted to, like, approach this, what’s before us right now, maybe from a different lens, so to speak.

As we know, the vast majority of volunteers get around using vehicles and the way we move goods and services is through vehicles. And so, I’m looking to see if there’s some way or a potential to dovetail the efficient movement for all of us with something like this with a program offered by two other levels of government with 73 cents on the dollar. And I’m thinking, for example, and I don’t know the correct name, but the turnoffs for transit buses to get them off the road where they load and unload those little ramp turnoffs off to the side of the road, which allows vehicles to more freely flow. It’s mutually beneficial to the vast majority who are in their own vehicles, the freight trucks that are moving up and down, and also to the transit buses themselves.

Obviously, that takes some money. Would that type of project qualify for this program? Ms. Chair.

Madam Chair, it would not, while laybys, I believe what the Council is referring to are bus laybys, are excellent for vehicle traffic. They actually do reduce the level of service for transit unless they are signalized, in which case you’re stopping traffic behind the layby, and you don’t have the traffic benefit. So, we do not believe that transit laybys, they haven’t suggested in the past for this funding would qualify. Councillor Van Reibergen, a follow-up to that?

Okay, so I just wanted to clear, have we specifically asked whomever or what department it is that says, yay or nay to these things? Mr. Chair. Have we specifically asked about these types of alcoves for the bus so that you can get a better relationship?

Ms. Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have not specifically asked.

We have to demonstrate there’s a benefit to transit level of service, and unfortunately, the research is quite clear that laybys do not benefit transit, they’re a dis-benefit to transit, but are helpful to vehicle flow only. And because of the nature of this program, improvements have to benefit the level of service for transit or active transportation. Thank you. Councillor, you’ve concluded.

Okay, I’m going, having not spoken yet, I will hand the chair over to the vice chair. Thank you, and with that, I will see Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer, grateful to staff for bringing this report forward.

And as Councillor Helmart said, 2027 seems a long way off, but time does pass awfully quickly, and it’s important to have shovel ready projects that will allow us to complete these in a reasonable amount of time to service people. Having followed public feedback online, the Thames Valley Parkway has been a new treasure discovered by many, and a treasure that many learners already use heavily. As for cars being the only way to move goods, I’ve seen a tremendous amount of cargo capacity of cargo bikes. I know it won’t always move everything, but full grocery loads and some small furniture as well.

Recognizing secure bike parking is a new amenity for many in the city, as Councillor Lewis and I had worked diligently on this project behind the scenes, and they were just implemented in several locations as well. Covent Garden Market being one, and that pilot project will be reported back to Civic Works later this year with a report coming from Mr. Stanford. Having seen what as Mr.

McCray pointed out as being bike lanes in Boulevard that were built 20, 30 years ago, we see the horrendous state of the ones on Wonderland Road, recognizing there’s grass growing the middle of it. They’re heaved along Commissioner’s Road. There’s not even markings on the bike lanes. You would think it was just a paved over Boulevard at the ends of people’s driveways.

The bike lanes as mapped out on Bradley Avenue right now actually don’t meet the criteria as it’s a small paved section between the gutter and the roadway. So I do believe we are far behind on active transportation options and cycling infrastructure in the city. I know vehicle drivers, we don’t really have roads that I can think of anywhere in the city that grass is growing up in the middle of them or a hydro pole is in the middle of your lane or you’re weaving around a tree. But that is how some of our active transportation infrastructure is built.

And I am in favor of it having being addressed as for 73 cents on the dollar. Absolutely. That is Londoner’s money. I recognize it as a single taxpayer and it’s spread wide and far.

And I do desire to bring as much of that back to London as possible. Recognizing the information before us today has come out of the cycling master plan, the London plan and many other plans. It’s not like staff sat around hatching out good ideas and making up things. These are already council approved programs that are coming back to us leveraging funding to do things faster and more efficiently and more economically with people’s money here in London.

So grateful for this report and very mindful of Councillor Helmer’s comments of other money on the table and projects that still need to be done to serve learners of today and tomorrow. So thank you for those comments. Mr. Presoning Officer and that concludes my comments.

Thank you, Councillor and Councillor I’ll hand the chair back to you and I see no additional speakers. Okay. Thank you. I also see no further speakers.

So a last call from anyone wishing to make comment. Hey, it’s been duly moved and seconded calling the question. Posing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Five are deferred matters list.

Staff has updated it looking for a mover and a seconder. Moved by Councillor Vailar, seconded by Councillor Helmer. Looking for questions or comments in regards to the deferred matters list. Seeing none, I’ll call the question.

Posing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Need a way of anyone having any additional business? So just a last call for that too. Councillor Helmer, did you have additional business?

Okay, that takes us to adjournment then, looking for a mover for adjournment. Moved by Councillor Vanholz, seconded by Councillor Helmer. A hand vote is adequate. All in favour of adjournment from Civic Works?

Motion carries. Thank you everyone for your time and I wish you a wonderful week.